Is this a fair ACR 5.6 vs NX2 test

[allanrube]

NX2 is slow, but with a D3X, it is unbelievably slow. I tried the new ACR this morning to see if I wanted to use it. The main reason - it is sooooo much faster with large files on my Mac.

However, I do not think the quality is as good. I made a simple test. Take a raw, change wb to same, apply a similar sharpening setting, adjust exposure, protect highlights, convert both to tiff and open in PS.

The color is not the same but I am not thinking of that at this stage.

I cropped to 4% of the total image. The NX version looks much better, so NX gives better results.

Just want to make sure - does anyone see anything wrong with the "test" I did.

NX
http://www.allanrube.com/photos/743946622_hhN6S-X3.jpg

ACR
http://www.allanrube.com/photos/743946609_kn3NW-X3.jpg

[Jeff Donald]

How are you applying a "similar sharpening setting?"

[arash_hazeghi]

This is not surprising to me at all, for more than a year now I have tried to replicate the output of Nikon Capture NX2 with different versions of Adobe SW, I have not succeeded. In addition to sharpening issues, there is a very well-documented problem with ACR when using "camera profiles" for Nikon D700/D3/D3X and D300 cameras which has been discussed many times in Adobe forums http://forums.adobe.com/message/2422012#2422012 Here is my own thread http://forums.adobe.com/thread/468122?tstart=0

This issue has existed even with earlier Nikon cameras: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6466-7776

I have contacted Adobe support many times and provided them with NEF files for examination, their final response was that Nikon uses propitiatory encoding for WB data in the NEF files and therefore Adobe is not able to correct for WB. This leads to color casts in neutral areas of the image. Also Adobe has no information about the strength of the low pass filter that is used in Nikon cameras and therefore cannot apply the right amount of sharpening by default, this leads to images that have a "watercolor" look to them like the one you posted.

As a result of complaints, Adobbe issued a statement on their website addressing the compatibility with NEF files http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/nikonraw.html
It somewhat states that Nikon and Adobe "work together" to ensure good quality when using Nikon products and Adobe sw but each have their own separate ways, in other words Nikon will not fully open their NEF format to Adobe.

I eventually gave up using ACR for my Nikon D700 and now only use NX2.2, it also has many features that not only LR but also Photoshop lacks and the image quality is much better. The drawback is that it has a clunky interface and requires a really fast computer to run smoothly.

Also remember that NX2 is not a free sw, since it is hard for Nikon to compete with Adobe in terms of programing efficiency, speed and interface the only way they can keep selling their sw is to do something that Adobe can't ;)

If you must use Adobe the following settings usually result in better looking images

Use Adobe standard profile (not camera standard), use a sharpening of (30,0.5,25) try to manually adjust WB by clicking the eye dropper tool on a neutral area or use color temperature, disable the HSM settings.

Hope this helps.

[David Thomasson]

Also remember that NX2 is not a free sw, since it is hard for Nikon to compete with Adobe in terms of programing efficiency, speed and interface the only way they can keep selling their sw is to do something that Adobe can't ;)

Informative reply. I think the above is the money line, both literally and figuratively. For users who place a premium on speed, Nikon loses to Adobe on this one.


If you must use Adobe the following settings usually result in better looking images

Use Adobe standard profile (not camera standard), use a sharpening of (30,0.5,25) try to manually adjust WB by clicking the eye dropper tool on a neutral area or use color temperature, disable the HSM settings. I wouldn't take any settings -- especially not sharpening -- as standards. Images vary too much for that cookbook approach. But it's worth adding that once you get the image into photoshop, WB is no problem (unless you have mixed light sources or something of that sort).

[Robert Amoruso]

Allan,

All I can tell you is that while I had a D300 I used NX that came with it and that was the only coverter I was happy with results-wise. It beat ACR and BBPro. However, all I used it for was to convert, then I did the rest of the processing in PS.

[allanrube]

Thanks for the replies. I do plan on staying with NX2 but I wish it were faster. Now, everyone says NX is slow, but I have trouble with it and D3X files on my Mac. My Mac is fast enough and has enough memory, but sometimes making an adjustment like changing the EC from .33 to .5 can take 45 seconds to complete. That is what I man by slow here. ACR is instantaneous, as you move a slider you see the diferences.
But I like the NX results, and cannot duplicate them in ACR, so I will stay.

[Alan Melle]

Strange, I don't know why it would take that long to change the EC. I just tested several images and changing the EC never took more than one second. That includes changing from +2 to -2

I'm using a Windows XP PC with 4GB of memory.

[allanrube]

I think part of this is due to the Mac version. From what I have been told, the Mac version runs in 16 bit and uses only 1 processor at a time - even if you have a quad core MAc running SL in 64 bit. And, I haven't heard that this will change.
I tried running the Windows version in Parallels on my Mac, but it was even slower. I have a 3 year old dual core (3.0 mgz) Mac.

Any NX, MAc, D3X users out there?

[arash_hazeghi]

I think part of this is due to the Mac version. From what I have been told, the Mac version runs in 16 bit and uses only 1 processor at a time - even if you have a quad core MAc running SL in 64 bit. And, I haven't heard that this will change.
I tried running the Windows version in Parallels on my Mac, but it was even slower. I have a 3 year old dual core (3.0 mgz) Mac.

Any NX, MAc, D3X users out there?


The code is not optimized for Mac, but runs OK on a fast PC (quad core with 4GB RAM or more). I tried running a bunch of D3X NEFs on my desktop (PC) which I downloaded from Imaging resource website, it takes about 2 seconds to load, EC is instantaneous and conversion to 16Bit TIFF is just under than 2 seconds. Does the view NX run as slow as Capture too?

[allanrube]

Problem definitely is a Mac one. First time I have no comeback when someone says I should have a PC.
View NX doesn't work with Mac 10.6 - another month of two. I had not used it before so I can't comment on how it worked with 10.5.

[Ray Rozema]

Thanks Arash

That information is very helpful and explains a lot

Ray:)